[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 123 (Thursday, July 17, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4438-S4440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Smithsonian Institution

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, next year, we will celebrate the 250th 
anniversary of our Nation's founding, and I am glad that in 
anticipation of this great celebration, President Trump has issued an 
Executive order outlining preparations that our country will make to 
celebrate this anniversary.
  As part of this effort, President Trump has also issued a separate 
Executive order specifically directing the elimination of woke and 
anti-American displays at the Smithsonian museum.
  Now, this may come as a shock to many people, but every single 
Institution in this city seems to be infected with political ideology 
and bureaucratic agendas, and the Smithsonian is no exception.
  The 21 museums that make up the Smithsonian Institution have been a 
treasure for a long time; but, unfortunately, in recent years, they 
have strayed from their true mission. These museums should be a place 
where up-and-coming generations of Americans can go to learn about 
American heroes and who built our great Nation.
  They should be places where they learn about our Founding Fathers, 
the founding documents like the Declaration of Independence and the 
Constitution, the pioneers who explored and settled this great land, 
and those who endured great hardships in order to make a better life 
for their children.
  There are so many great stories of Americans, people who have done so 
much to make our country what it is today. These stories are what our 
young people need to hear because how else will you inspire the 
upcoming generation to stand on the shoulders of their forebearers and 
continue to make life better for more and more people who call this 
great country home?
  How will we teach those who will one day lead this Nation--whether 
that is in government or in business, in medicine or any other field--
that these pursuits are honorable and they have a purpose, if they have 
not yet learned these lessons about the heroic men and women who have 
gone on before them?
  Unfortunately, as I indicated a moment ago, the Smithsonian has 
strayed from its original reason for being. The Smithsonian Institution 
was founded in 1846 for the expressed purpose of increasing the 
diffusion of knowledge among men. It was founded as a gift by James 
Smithson, who devised his entire estate to the U.S. Government.
  Congress, as we now know, accepted this gift and provided for its 
governance and its financing. The Smithsonian Institution operates as a 
trust, which means that it is an executive Agency of the U.S. 
Government and is chaired by a 17-member Board of Regents.
  But since its original founding in 1846, something has gone terribly 
wrong with the direction of the Smithsonian. A writer and mother of six 
recently described her experience taking her children to museums in our 
Nation's Capital on a warm summer day.
  At the family's first stop, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural 
History, her 4-year-old was excited to see dinosaur skeletons. But she 
was disappointed to learn that much of the dinosaur exhibit was 
dedicated to climate change.
  One exhibit specifically read:

       Since the last ice age, Earth's climate has warmed. But now 
     that warming is getting faster because of us.

  Well, you don't have to be a climate denier--and I am not--to 
recognize that something is profoundly wrong with this message.
  Is it really the message a 4-year-old needs to learn, that climate 
change is something that she or he is personally guilty of contributing 
to?
  Unfortunately, to the mother's dismay, she said the museum's website 
highlighted additional polarizing displays. A historian from the museum 
told the mother:


[[Page S4439]]


  

       The second-floor popular culture exhibit--probably the most 
popular in the museum--is a Marxist struggle session. Every single 
exhibit is interpreted through a race-class-gender lens.

  Is that really what we want to be teaching the upcoming generation of 
Americans at our most esteemed museums?
  No. It seems like the Smithsonian has lost its way.
  Instead of celebrating the contributions of remarkable Americans or 
educating our children about the animals that once roamed the planet, 
Smithsonian Institution museums are telling children they should feel 
guilty for contributing to climate change and introducing them to 
topics, which are clearly not age-appropriate.
  But sometimes, it is not what the Smithsonian includes in their 
exhibits which is troubling; it is what they choose to exclude.
  Who can forget the snub to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 
the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and 
Culture?
  I recall when the museum opened, the Smithsonian had zero plans to 
reference Justice Clarence Thomas, the second of two Black Justices to 
ever serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Instead, what they chose to highlight is the testimony of Anita Hill 
in what came to be known as a ``high-tech lynching'' that followed.
  Well, this was, obviously, a biased presentation and one that was 
clearly on its head. And I introduced a resolution at the time asking 
them to recognize the historical importance of Justice Thomas and his 
service to the Court.
  After a groundswell of opposition in the months that followed, the 
museum finally did include him in an exhibit. But, the previous exhibit 
featuring Anita Hill and not the Justice is a stain on the Smithsonian 
that I will never forget.
  I remember talking to the head of the Smithsonian at the time. 
Basically, he said: Thank you, Senator, for your call, but Congress 
doesn't have anything to say about what we do at the Smithsonian.
  Well, he is wrong, and these are not messages that the Smithsonian 
should be sending.
  America's history is a tale of triumph over incredible odds in the 
pursuit of freedom, and it is one that all of our children and our 
grandchildren deserve to learn in an unbiased and apolitical way.
  Now, some have argued that the Smithsonian is subject to oversight by 
Congress and the executive branch. Others have said: No, it is purely a 
private, independent entity.
  But a close examination of the Institution's history will show that 
it has always been a government institution, an institution of the U.S. 
Government.
  After James Smithson willed his estate for an establishment for the 
increase and diffusion of knowledge, the Senate--the U.S. Senate, what 
we are today--passed a bill to establish and organize the Smithsonian 
Institution that was signed into law by President Polk in 1846.
  Now, that doesn't sound like a private, independent entity to me if 
Congress has to pass a law.
  And then Congress delegated the governance of the Smithsonian 
Institution to a Board of Regents. This Board includes a Chief Justice 
of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, as well 
as three sitting Senators and Representatives.
  Moreover, the Smithsonian receives more than half of its funds--its 
operating funds--from the American taxpayer, from the Federal 
Government. It is pretty hard to make the case that an Institution that 
gets the majority of its funding from Congress and is governed by a 
board of government officials is anything but a government entity. In 
fact, you can't make that argument because the evidence is all to the 
contrary.
  Furthermore, the Institutions are structured much like other 
government Agencies headed by a Secretary who oversees several Under 
Secretaries. I don't know of any private corporations whose CEOs are 
referred to as ``secretary.''
  Moreover, the Smithsonian Institution itself has argued time and time 
again in court that they are, in fact, a government entity. In a case 
called Raven v. Sajet, a Federal court agreed, ruling that the 
``Smithsonian is a government institution through and through.'' That 
means that the Smithsonian is clearly subject to oversight by the U.S. 
Government, including the executive branch and the Congress.
  Our country was founded on the ideals of individual liberty, justice, 
and equality before the law. These are values that our institutions 
should teach, particularly to the next generation--not ``woke'' 
ideology and political agendas. So as we prepare for the celebration of 
America's 250th birthday, I would encourage--strongly encourage--the 
Smithsonian Institution to reconsider its purpose and to return to the 
principles and ideals laid out in the founding documents they so 
proudly display, to the benefit of all Americans.
  I would close with this prediction: We know from recent events--some 
as recent as early this morning when we took the step that many of us 
have talked about for many years, and that is eliminating taxpayer 
support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--there are more 
than enough media entities that are capable of communicating the news 
and other information of interest to our constituents, the 350 million 
people in the country. We don't need to subsidize those with taxpayer 
money. Indeed, if you look at the First Amendment of the Constitution, 
it guarantees a free press. Can the press truly be free if it is 
financed and subsidized by the government? I don't see how that is 
possible.
  So starting early this morning with the vote on the rescissions 
package and the defunding, at least in terms of Federal funds--private 
funds and donations are certainly fine--but we finally have begun the 
step of bringing accountability to the Nation's Capital. No longer will 
the bureaucracy simply take the taxpayers' money and do what they want 
regardless of oversight by the Congress and the executive branch and 
the oversight, in essence, of the American people. Those days are over.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


              Nomination of Lt. Gen. Thomas M. Carden, Jr.

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I informed Senate leadership 
of my intent to object to the Senate proceeding to Trump's nominee to 
serve as Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau. So I rise today to 
both publicly and clearly explain my hold on this nomination and to 
demand that the Trump administration release all remaining U.S. 
military forces from the unnecessary and political deployment to Los 
Angeles.
  Earlier this week, the Trump administration did announce that they 
would be releasing 2,000 National Guard troops from deployment--no, not 
from an overseas mission, not from some disaster response to a region 
in need, but from a deployment against their own fellow citizens.
  Around 2,000 National Guard women and men and an additional 700 
marines are still in Los Angeles today. Why? Because Donald Trump needs 
a distraction.
  Think back to about a month ago. The President found himself at the 
lowest point of his Presidency thus far. He was drowning in negative 
headlines, everything from his failing tariff wars that continue to 
raise prices and costs on working families, to Vladimir Putin 
embarrassing him on the world stage, to a messy, public breakup with 
Elon Musk. So in order to change the news cycle, which he does so 
often, to shift the headlines away from his many, many failures, 
President Trump chose to ramp up ICE raids in California.
  When Californians took to the streets to exercise their First 
Amendment rights by peacefully protesting, Trump responded by 
federalizing the California National Guard, and then later the U.S. 
Marines were ordered in to intimidate the people of Los Angeles.
  It was the first time that the National Guard has been deployed 
against the wishes of the State's Governor since 1965.
  None of these servicemembers signed up to become a political prop, 
but Trump has put them in this impossible position that he knew would 
escalate tensions in the region and take them away from their critical 
missions elsewhere.

[[Page S4440]]

  That is exactly why, in late June, a few weeks ago, the head of U.S. 
Northern Command requested that Secretary Hegseth return at least 200 
troops from the National Guard's wildfire unit who were stuck in Los 
Angeles for Trump's political purposes, because every day that those 
troops were unnecessarily deployed to Los Angeles was another day that 
their primary mission went unmet. We are talking about undermining 
firefighting and fire mitigation efforts as we are approaching peak 
wildfire season. This is dangerous and unnecessary.
  Because the Trump administration continued to keep thousands of 
troops in Los Angeles, 2 weeks ago, I exercised my constitutional duty 
as a U.S. Senator to advise and consent to nominations in order to 
block the nomination of LTG Thomas Carden.
  Lieutenant General Carden currently serves as second in command of 
Northern Command, the combatant command that has overseen Trump's 
orders to militarize Los Angeles.
  But I want to be very clear about something. My objection is about 
more than Lieutenant General Carden. None of what we are seeing in Los 
Angeles through this militarization is business as usual. Deploying the 
Guard against the wishes of the Governor, against the wishes of the 
mayor, and against even the wishes of local law enforcement--the 
sheriff, the police chief--none of that is normal.
  So today, I am making it clear to all of my colleagues of my intent 
to oppose any expedited consideration of this nomination until two 
conditions are met:
  First, every last guardsman and marine must be released from this 
deployment in Los Angeles. Stop militarizing our cities and using our 
servicemembers as political pawns.
  Second, I will maintain my hold until I have been given sufficient 
commitments and assurances from this administration that no guardsmen 
from other States will be sent to enforce the President's political 
demands on California.
  Until both of these conditions are met, I will maintain my hold on 
this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.